AutoBio2.txt
December 28, 2005
Dear Friends,
Subject: My History
PART I - Personal engineering and scientific interest.
PART II - Separating pure scientific facts from "medicine".
PART I
Purpose: To Provide intellectual and scientific support to Steve
Leung in his work to prevent the development of
nearsightedness in children.
When I was young, I was told that I would learn scientific
truth -- only after the truth no longer mattered. But knowing the
truth about the dynamic nature of the eye was, and is, very
important to me.
Since we have been working on "nearsightedness prevention"
for the last 30 years, we might look "inward" in the sense that we
analyze our own motivations. Obviously I realized that we
understand the natural eye "differently". I believe that that
natural eye MUST be dynamic, and some people have accepted the
"traditional" picture that the eye is a "frozen" box camera, and
does not control its refractive state to its visual environment.
MY PERSONAL CURIOSITY
When I was 16 years old I went through a personal "crisis"
and felt my life was "over". [Most people would have regarded it
as a normal "bump" on the road of life!] But that personal
disaster spurred my interest in "nearsightedness". The standard
(i.e., box-camera) explanations did not "ring true", and I had to
wonder if the pressure to prescribe an immediate solution was
"driving" this process - and I sought to determine if that were
the case.
THE OPHTHALMOLOGIST
Since my interest had become clear to my family, my father
asked our ophthalmologist about this issue. The ophthalmologist
said, "Oh, God, don't let Otis get involved with that issue". To
me he said, "Once you become an Ophthalmologist -- then you will
understand". I have not become an Ophthalmologist - but I
certainly understand why he made the statements he did!
But my curiosity was such that I could not "let it go".
Equally, however, I knew he was a fine man who was doing the best
that he could do - and I respected him for that reason.
I did understand how my questions might be construed as
insulting, although that is not, and has never been intention.
The fact that he had to imply that I didn't "understand" worried
me. I resolved to ask a different type of question to avoid this
type of conflict.
WORKING FOR A LIVING
I worked a few years for the telephone company. This was
good "outside work". I had some time the study the design of the
V2 rocket in a book written by Dr. Walter Dorenberger.
The result of this engineering book caused me to respect for
the design of a "control systems". The rocket flies straight up
-- with the flame straight down. To thhe casual observer it
appears that the rocket-motor is "fixed". To the rocket-engineer
it is clear that this is a false belief - - of the general public.
The entire system is absolutely "unstable". Only continuous
strong motions of the motor, monitoring a gyroscope creates this
apparent "stability". Later this idea of "active" stability
became the core of a technical analysis of the eye's fundamental
behavior.
COLLEGE AND TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
In college I had the opportunity to study the history of
science. (This was different from most "science" books, since it
defined how ideas in science develop. The concept was profoundly
"different" than the conventional notion of science that most
people have of the subject. The book was "The Foundations of
Modern Science" by Gerald Holton and Duane Roller.
The specific idea that caught my imagination was the struggle
between the Ptolemaic concept (earth-centered) universe, versus
the Copernicus (sun-centered) universe. These were two
"world-view" concepts. A study of these concepts and how
"observed facts" interact with scientific theory were essential
for me.
The "world view" and the "fact" seemed to totally support the
Ptolmaic concept -- and the fact that the concept had been use for
the last 1200 years seemed to make the Ptolmaic concept "perfect".
Further, the concept had been accepted by the Catholic church.
The "objections" by Galileo was then translated as a DIRECT ATTACK
on the entire Catholic church. It was for this reason that
Galileo was forced to "recant" his belief that the earth (and
planets) moved around the sun as the center - and not the earth.
He was placed under "house arrest" until his death.
Later I changed my "interest" to engineering and spent four
years obtaining a BS degree from Capitol College. As part of this
study I learned to design "control systems" -- as well as many
issues regarding engineering and design in science. A deep
appreciation the truth that the natural eye must be a
sophisticated system (for stability) became part of this
evaluation.
RADIO STATION WORK - FREE TIME TO THINK
During this time (for curiosity) I continued my interest in
nearsightedness. One "popular" publication, about 1965 was by Dr.
William Ludlam. He stated that "Submariners developed
nearsightedness proportional to the time they spent in a
submarine". Since this make a great deal of sense to me, I wrote
up a thirty page paper, describing the concept of the plus to be
used for prevention -- since I had NEVER EVEN HEARD of any
proposed or suggested use of the plus as a preventive to
nearsightedness.
Dr. Ludlam wrote back and said that the concept of "the
plus" was not new, and that Dr. Raphaelson had developed the
concept to a certain extent. I then went to Cincinnati about 1967
to see him. Jacob was 92 years old -- and I felt very lucky that
I could visit and talk with him. He gave me his publications, and
they provided a great insight into the difficulties of introducing
prevention - from the perspective of an optometrist. These
insights were valuable to me - and changed by "world view" about
the natural eye's behavior in a fundamental way.
PREVENTION AS SEEN FROM THE OPTOMETRIST'S POINT-OF-VIEW
While Jacob covered many subject, there were two items that
DEFINED the nature of the "problem" and caused me to forcefully
separate the matter of dealing with people "off the street" as
different from pure-science, or "engineering-science". I will
describe why this is necessary in "Part II" of this review.
FURTHER CLARIFICATION
There is a tendency to state that the minus lens method, put
is place 400 years ago is "based on science", or call such use,
"science". I object in strong terms to that type of "thinking".
I could understand the OD who would say, ".but I have no choice".
To avoid conflict, I would describe this as "medical-science", or
the matter of dealing as best you can with a great mass of people
who expect an "instant solution" from some one who is "medical".
Dr. Raphaelson was successful in, "The Printer's Son", only
to have the parents and child totally REJECT both Raphaelson and
the plus lens. It is now very clear, that the child (in this
statement) would simply have gotten back into nearsightedness
because his habits had not changed. I simply can not tolerate
this type of situation. If the person I talk to demands that
"instant solution", then I will not "fight" with him or the OD
about the issue.
CLEARING THE MIND -- AND WORK WITH FRANCIS YOUNG
In fact, I have no "objection" to the use of the minus, and
consider that an OD (like Jacob Raphaelson) has only an obligation
to SUGGEST the possibility of using the plus (providing the
child's vision is "workable", i.e., 20/40 to 20/70). If the
parents can not accept the plus at that point -- then they should
sign a statement that they had been informed of the "preventive"
method, and that they prefer the immediate solution of the minus
lens. For me that would "clear the air", and make the parent
responsible for the long-term consequence of that choice. Given
the one-way street nature of myopia development, the parents must
understand that when the minus lens is started - the plus can not
be used.
FINDING MORE INFORMATION -- BY BEING PROVACATIVE
Many people are "passive" -- meaning that they do not "push"
their knowledge. It has always been my habit to ask questions.
If I receive "put offs" and "put downs" then I must find out why
my questions are being deflected. Is it because I am "insulting"
the person with my questions. If my questions are honest, then I
expect an honest answer. If my questions are still considered
"insulting" then I must find out why.
Part of this goal is to "stand up" and publish your
assessment. In a formal scientific review process. I have
published papers in the IEEE/EMBS with co-authors who are leaders
in their field. It takes a considerable amount of time to prepare
these papers and get them accepted for publication. This was a
"learning" process for me. But at least I had the "guts" to stand
up and make this type of pitch. Ultimately, I assembled these
papers into my book, "How to Avoid Nearsightedness". I did this
in part to help the "next curious person" to avoid the labor I
when through to reach my conclusion about
nearsightedness-prevention.
[I was very upset that it took me ten years to "find" Jacob
Raphaelson. An engineering text and review would have saved me an
immense amount of labor. And I am always in favor of "labor
saving" publications. Straight answers about the proven behavior
of the natural eye would have saved me an immense amount of
physical work on this project.]
DAVID GUYTON, KAREL MONTOR, PETER GREENE, AND DONALD REHM
During this time I had the pleasure of meeting the above
people. The goal was to initiate a "preventive" effort at the
Naval Academy -- among pilots -- who MIGHT have the motivation for
the effort. The result was pleasant conversations and discussions
-- but "red tape" prevented ANYTHING frrom being attempted. I must
also add that the time I spent with these people was wonderful.
PUBLICATION OF MY BOOK, "HOW TO AVOID NEARSIGHTEDNESS"
Up to this point, I only knew that Dr. Colgate had cleared
his vision with the plus. But I never heard of anyone else doing
it under their own control. With the book published, I sold it
through a "Professional Flying" magazine, and attempted to
restrict the sale to ONLY pilots whose vision was 20/40 to 20/70
who (with intense motivation) could clear their vision back to
20/20. I sold the book to a Brian Severson, who "cleared" to
20/20 - from 20/70. At least I knew that prevention was possible
-- when done with great intensity.
RETIREMENT FROM GSFC
In 2002 (age 62) I retired from "contractor work" at the
Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland -- after 35
years of very interesting and enjoyable work. Since I now have
more time to pursue my "hobby", I developed the Internet page,
www.myopiafree.com, to further develop the concept and help people
like, "The Printer's Son", to "wake up" and understand the
necessity of prevention - or understand the "direct consequence"
of rejecting the use of the plus at the threshold. This is far
more an educational process for the individual himself, rather
than a "medical" process. I know that most people simply do not
understand this issue. It is very important however, since
failure to learn to use the plus "correctly" leads to life-time
consequences that (almost) can not be reversed.
[Obviously this now depends on the "qualities" of the person
himself -- to decide this issue. Since no one can "predict" that
a person has a "quality mind" for this work, I make myself
completely dependent on the person himself to have these
qualities.]
THE FUTURE -- SAME AS THE PAST?
The past "predicts" the future. One hundred years ago, no
one could make a statement about the dynamic behavior of the
natural eye -- because no one "thought" to run the correct
experiment. Today, in "engineering science" we can predict --
with good accuracy -- the behavior of the fundamental eye,
providing we test the natural eye under "input" versus "output"
conditions. We must use absolutely neutral testing (to avoid
bias) I suggest we use the term "refractive state" where the
natural eye can (and does) have positive and negative refractive
states -- depending on the "input" average-visual environment.
This type of study proves that the fundamental eye is dynamic.
[Dynamic in the sense of rocket-guidance. There is no doubt
that on a pure-scientific level that the natural eye is proven to
behave as a dynamic system.]
However NONE of this accurate information is ever discussed
with a person on the threshold of nearsightedness. I am very
pleased that a few men have been able to "figure out" how to
intensively use the plus "correctly". It seems to take a person
of considerable intelligence to realize that you must understand
the eye's behavior "correctly" -- and can not, in a knee-jerk
fashion use the quick fix method. The real answer is to
understand the facts as stated above, and CHANGE the near
environment with the plus.
PART II
SEPARATING PURE SCIENCE FROM MEDICAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
There are may people who confuse "medical" considerations and
actions From "pure science" issues. To avoid the antagonisms
involved, I suggest using the word engineering- science when
discussing the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye, versus
"medical-science", when discussing MEDICAL issues concerning the
eye. Failure to separate this issue in this manner will ALWAYS
create confusion and anger - and emotional, self-protective
response from an OD or MD. I have see way too much of the
"self-protective" reaction on the part of may Ods. I regret it -
but it must be faced as a "fact" of this discussion.
MEDICAL-SCIENCE CONSIDERATIONS
A very dedicated optometrist (Raphaelson) spelled out the
real problem of prevention - in the "Printer's Son". As long a
parents REJECT the use of the plus when it must be used - there is
no future for "true-prevention", or the optometrist can not
administrate it effectively. This issue did not reflect on
Raphaelson - it reflects on the ignorance and lack of MOTIVATION
of the public for prevention. There was NOTHING Raphaelson could
do about this issue - and NOTHING I can do about it either.
Classify this as a "medical-science" issue.
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE ISSUES
As long as the "Printer's Son" scenario exists, then
"prevention" will always be impossible. Thus the issue becomes
the "education" of the "Printer's son" about prevention - on an
"either-or" basis. I quite frankly was shocked about this
question when I discussed the story with Dr. Raphaelson. But it
became clear that nothing could be done. No amount of scientific
research, or technical analysis can change this issue. But in the
last 100 years scientific truth is finally confirming the behavior
of the natural eye.
OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS
In working with Francis Young, I had access to his data.
Thus, the issue of the natural eye could be resolved by DIRECT
testing. In order to do this correctly it is necessary to use
very basic words to describe a measurement. We should not "read"
meaning into a measurement - because this becomes a biased way of
interpreting the data. Thus, if we wish to determine the dynamic
nature of the fundamental eye, we ask simple and basic questions
about whether a population of nature eyes are dynamic on an input
versus output basis.
Further, we use the neutral term refractive-state. In the
case of Francis Young's study, the measurement was made by induced
paralysis, since you could not get the monkeys to read an eye
chart. Thus the test is simple - and there can be only two
possible results. Either the natural eye is dynamic - or it is
not. Further, this type of test is repeatable, if the result is
disputed. This is "pure-science", since it takes the person
himself to "accept" the conclusions you will reach if you take
this type of testing seriously. Francis Young published these
results, and I did further analysis which demonstrated that the
natural eye controlled its refractive status to its average value
of accommodation.
There is no scientific doubt about this result - but there
are may who do not like "abstract" analysis and scientific truth
about this result. I have no power to "argue" with a person who
rejects this type of scientific analysis --- but it does lead to
the conclusion that nearsightedness could be prevented - by the
person himself - if he had the fortitude to take this type of
pure-scientific research seriously. My book, "How to Avoid
Nearsightedness" is designed to assist a person who has a strong
motivation to "protect" his distant vision through the school
years. But equally I do acknowledge that most people can not "get
motivated" in the correct-use of the plus. The person who
criticizes an optometrist like Jacob Raphaelson or Steve Leung
should write up an "essay" explaining how Steve should overcome
the resistance of "The Printer's Son" to correct-use of the plus.
Since was the parents who rejected the use of the plus - then
they, in their ignorance, accepted full responsibility for the
consequences. We know now that when the plus is rejected in this
manner, the child's vision will start down again, and that the
"down" rate is about -1/2 diopter per year. (Although for some
children, it can be 3.5 diopters per year.). Thus the OD must
deal with this type of "ignorance", and this ignorance will
continue to compel this situation. Worse, some Ods insist that
"prevention" with the plus ". must be destroyed". This makes the
situation of "The Printer's Son" even worse - since any OD
attempting to offer the use of the plus on the threshold will
encounter of "buzz saw" of opposition FROM HIS FELLOW Ods!
THE DIS-INCENTIVE TO SUPPORT PREVENTION FOR AN OD
This is a tremendous dis-incentive to do ANYTHING for
prevention. These are very serious issues - and must be discussed
with the parents before any minus lens is used.
AN INFORMED-CONSENT CONTRACT AS THE
FIRST STEP TO PRACTICAL PREVENTION
The issue is serious enough to call for a "technical
agreement" or "contract" with the parents about the use of a
straight-plus for the child. I believe that this will prevent
"abuse" OF THE OD who OFFERS true-prevention with the plus. This
document is prepared to help BOTH the parents and the OD with this
subject. Obviously the parents can not understand all these
issues - but their intelligence should be respected, and their
child's right to a "second opinion" could be respected and
supported under this "signed contract" method of prevention.
HOW TO SEPARATE PURE SCIENTIFIC ISSUES FROM "MEDICAL" ISSUES.
Subject: the Second-opinion on preventing negative refractive states.
I suggest that there is a profound difference concerning "pure
science" and "pure medicine". And I suggest the difference is
this:
Medicine: Must deal with a great mass of people walking in off the
street. There might be some "intelligent" people but
that can never be the assumption of the medical doctor.
The result is that we get "canned" procedures that
"work" instantly. I consider that people in this
profession have no choice but to conduct that kind of
work -- and I would do the same thing IN THEIR
PROFESSION. That would not make it "right" but I do
understand them -- and what they are doing.
Science: Must "step back" from that situation, and think about the
behavior of the natural eye as a dynamic system.
Engineers and scientists simply do not deal with
children, nor with others that do not understand
the need to work on prevention with the plus.
But when you ask very fundament questions about whether a
population of eyes (primates) are dynamic, you get the
"second-opinion" answer, that POTENTIALLY a negative refractive
status could be prevented -- before the minus lens is applied.
I believe that pure science (i.e., the SCIENTIFIC -- not
medical -- experiments proves that point.) But that is the nature
of our arguments. Many concepts in science simply can never be
reduced to "medicine" and we should understand that truth.
I enjoyed your write-up about pure science, and the "habit"
of tossing science out the window when a concept (like the dynamic
eye) can never produce a quick-fix in 15 minutes.
But that is how I separate "medical issues" from scientific
concepts and experimental and objective testing.
But that is why it took a scientist like Dr. Stirling
Colgate to do the "work" correctly and clear his vision from 20/70
to 20/20.
His statements are confirmed by direct experiments with the
primate eye, again on a pure-scientific (not medical) level.
Use the term "refractive state" where the natural eye can
have positive and negative refractive status (as a dynamic device)
and this situation becomes much clearer.
Best,
Otis